TAZKIRAH INSANi

Tuesday, 8 January 2013

According to
Bryman (1996) as cited in Millward (2005) notes, however, that most researchers
would not argue with a definition of leadership as the process (act) of
influencing the activities of an organized group in its efforts towards goal
setting and goal achievement’ (Stogdill, 1950:3) as cited in Millward, 2005.
The influence process is inextricably linked with groups and the group process.
In the early stages of leadership research, the ability to lead was attributed
to distinctive traits (so-called ‘great man’ theory). However, a comprehensive and
landmark review by Stogdill (1948) as cited in Millward (2005) concluded that
there was no evidence for this claim, and research took another turn. In
particular, the focus shifted towards understanding how exactly leaders behave,
and to linking different group processes with different styles of behaviour.

According to
Brodbeck (2008) as edited by Nik Chmiel, (2008) mention that leadership in
organizations, means having and being seen to have the ability to influence and
enable others to contribute toward the success of their work unit or
organization.

Leader
Traits

According to
Brodbeck (2008) as edited by Chmiel (2008) mention that from the beginning of
leadership research up until about the 1960’s most leadership research focused
on personal characteristics of leaders (e.g., intelligence, temperament.
Motives, personal values) following the idea that “a leader is born- not made”.

It seems
that leadership success criteria are related to certain leadership traits. For
example traits like high energy level and stress tolerance help managers to
cope with the hectic pace of their job, the long hours, and the frequently
encountered stressful interpersonal situations, and self-confidence(i.e., self
efficacy, self-esteem), relates positively to advancement and being perceived
as a charismatic leader (for a review about personality and leadership, see
Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhard, 2002)

Note that
there are some close relationships between personality traits, like
intelligence, and certain skill, like abstract thinking.

Charismatics
leadership is usually defined more narrowly than tarnsfomational leadership.
Behaviors typical of charismatics leaders are for example, the articulation of
appealing visions, communication of high expectations and expression og high
confidence in followers.

According to
West (2002) edtied by Chmiel (2008) mention that the leader’s task also
includes helping team members develop their skill and abilities such as
cognitive ability.

Cognitive
ability (Intelligence) Tests

Psychometric
tests are standardized measures designed to assess a specific construct, and
can be divided into two main categories: cognitive ability tests (Intelligence
test) and personality tests (e.g., Smith & Smith, 2005) as cited in Chmiel
(2008). Cognitive abilities tests, or tests of general mental ability (“g” or
GMA), measure general intelligence or specific aptitude such as numerical,
verbal, spatial ability, while personality tests measure personality dimensions
such as conscientousness, extrovertion, and so forth.. There is variation
across Europe in relation to the use of cognitive ability test (Intelligence
Test) (Salgado & Anderson as cited in Anderson, Salgado, Schinkel and Snell
(2008): They are more used in Belgium, Britain, the Netherlands, Portugal, and
Spain than in France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, or Italy; also they are more
frequently used in Europe than in the United States. Candidates responds
moderately well to cognitive tests (Chan & Schmitt, 2004; Steiner &
Gilliland, 1996) as cited in Anderson et al., (2008), but tends to rate tests
with concrete items as more job-related than abstracts tests (Smither et al.,
1993) as cited in Anderson et al. (2008) as edited by Chmiel (2008). Hence,
organizations may generate higher performance from candidates by selecting
ability tests which have high face validity.

Another
contemporary perspective on leadership explored the circumstances under which
intelligence or experience best predicts leader effectiveness. Cognitive
resource theory (CRT- Fieldler and Garcia, 1987) as cited in Gist and Mann
(2000) edited by Cooper and Locke (2000) posits that intellectual abilities are
best under low stress conditions, but that prior experience leads to greater
effectiveness under conditions of high stress. Although this theory has evident
utility for leader selection, it also has been applied to leader training, In a
typical study of university students, Murphy et al. (1992) found that leaders’
expertise contributed to group effectiveness only if leaders were first trained
in task-relevant knowledge and then were directive in their behavior. We note
that this is a form of cognitive-skills training, and that it relates to
findings from the group decision-making literature. There it was shown that a person’s
technical expertise facilitates decisions when that person has the most
knowledge among group members, and that the group’s performance only
capitalizes on the knowledge of its “best member” if that person exrts
influence (for example, Bottger, 1984; Bottger and Yetton, 1988; Vroom and
Jago. 1978) as cited in Gist and Mann (2000) edited by Cooper and Locke (2000).

Some
Researchers think individual differences in intelligence are of great
importance in understanding why people bahve in different ways from each
others, whereas others argue that intelligence is an almost valueless concept.
Some researchers ( e.g., H.J Eysenck, 1981) as cited in Eysenck 2004) believe
that individual differences in intelligence are almost entirely due to
heredity, but others (e.g., Kamin, 1981) claim that only environmental factors
are of importance.

As
reasonable definition of intelligence was offered by Sternbergand Ben-Zeev
(20010, p. 368) as cited in Eysenck (2004): “the ability to learn from experience
and to adapt to the surrounding environment”.

Cultural
differences in conceptions of intelligence do exist, but they are not typically
very great. Sternberg, Conway, Ketron, and Berstien (1981) found that there
were three ingredients to Americans’ conceptions of intelligence: verbal
ability, practical problem solving, and social competence.

Theories of
Intelligence

We have
considered aspects of the traditional theory of intelligence. This theory had
its origins in the work of spearman (1972) as cited in Eysenck (2004), but was
subsequently endorsed by several theorist including H.J. Eysenck (1979) as
cited in Eysenck (2004) and Herrnstein and Murray (1994) as cited in Eysenck
(2004). Key assumptions of the traditional theory are as follows:

o Individual
differ in a single psychological process that can be assessed by the general
factor of intelligence or by IQ.

o
Intelligence depends mainly on genetic factors. H.J Eysenck (1979) as cited in
Eysenck (2004) argued that, “Intelligence as measured by IQ tests has a strong
genetic basis; genetic factors account for an estimated 80% of the total
variance.”

o The fact
that intelligence is largely inherited means it is difficult to change an
individual’s level of intelligence.

Pg 435 Eysenck (2004)

Leadership
Style

There are
many different models of leadership style, but common to all is the assumption
that leadership behaviour can be described in two main ways: task-oriented and
relationship-oriented. The task style is oriented to managing task
accomplishment (where the leader defines clearly and closely what subordinates
should be doing and how, and actively schedules work for them), whilst the
relationship style is oriented to managing the interpersonal relations to group
members (by demonstrating concern about subordinates as people, responsiveness
to subordinate needs and the promotion of team spirit and cohesion).

The
‘initiating structure/ consideration’ distinction has had a major impact on
leadership theory and research since the 1950s. It forms the basis of many
leadership measures, for instance the Supervisory Behaviour Description
Questionnaire (Fleish, 1953) as cited in Millward,2005- a vehicle for asking
subordinates how they think should behave as a supervisor- and the Leader
Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ); (Fleisman, 1953) as cited in
Millward, 2005 probably the most frequently employed measure of leadership.

Some highly
specialized Q-sorts include the Leadership Q-Test (Cassel,1958) as cited in
Cohen and Swedlik, (2010) and the Tyler Vocational Classification System
(Tyler, 1961) as cited in Cohen and Swedlik , (2010).

Personal
Characteristics Associated with Leadership

In the last
100 years, many attempts have been made to identify the personal
characteristics associated with leader emergence and leader performance Aamodt,
(2010).

Leader
Emergence

Leader
emergence is the idea that people who become leaders possess traits or
characteristic different from people who do not become leaders. That is, people
who become leaders, such as Barrack H. Obama and CEOs Carly Fiorina and Michael
Dell, share traits that your neighbor or a food preparer at McDonald’s does
not. If we use your school as an example, we would predict that the students in
your student government would be different from students who do not participate
in leadership activities. In fact, research indicates that to some extent,
people are “born’ with a desire to lead or not lead, as somewhere between 17%
(Ilies, Gerhardt,&Le, 2004) as cited in Aamodt, 2010 and 30% (Arvey,
Rotundo, Johnson, Zhang,&McGue,2006) as cited in Aamodt, (2010) of leader
emergence has a genetic basis (Ilies et al.,2004) as cited in Aamodt, (2010).

Does that
mean that there is a “leadership gene” that influences leader emergence?
Probably not. Instead we inherit certain traits and abilities that might
influence our decision to seek leadership.

Though early
reviews of the literature suggested that the relationship between traits and
leader emergence is not very strong, as shown in Table 12.1, more recent
reviews suggest that

1. People
high in openness, conscientiousness, and extraversion, and low in neuroticism
are more likely to emergence as leaders than their counterparts (Judge, Bono,
Ilies & Gerhardtm, 2002) as cited in Aamodt, 2010.

2. High
self-monitors (people who adapt their behavior to the social situation) emerge
as leaders more often than low self-monitors (Day & Schleicher, 2006; Day,
Schleicher,Unckless, & Hiller, 2002) as cited in Aamodt, (2010).

3. More
intelligent people are more likely to emerge as leaders than are less
intelligent people (Judge, Colbert, & Ilies, 2004) as cited in Aamodt,
(2010).

4. Looking
at patterns of abilities and personality traits is more useful than looking at
individual abilities and traits (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007) as cited in
Aamodt, (2010)

It is
especially perplexing that some of the early reviews concluded that specific
trait are seldom related to leader emergence because both anecdotal evidence
and research suggest that leadership behavior has some stability (Law,1996) as
cited in Aamodt, (2010). To illustrate this point, think of a friend you
consider to be a leader. In all probability, that person is leader in many
situations. That is, he might influence a group of friends about what movie to
see, make decision about what time everyone should meet for dinner, and “take
charge” when playing sports

Conversely,
you probably have a friend who has never assumed a leadership role in his life.
Thus, it appears that some people consistently emerge as leaders in a variety
of situations, whereas others never emerge as leaders.

Perhaps one
explaination for the lack of agreement on a list of traits consistently related
to leader emergence is that the motivation to lead is more complex than
originally thought. In a study using a large international sample, Chan and
Drasgow, (2001) as cited in Aamodt, (2010) found that the motivation to lead
has three aspects (factors): Affective identity, non calculative, and
social-normative. People with an affective identity motivation become leaders
because they enjoy being in charge and leading others. Of the three leadership
motivation factors, people scoring high on this one tend to have the most
leadership experience and are rated by others as having high leadership
potential. Those with a non calculative motivation seek leadership position
when they perceive that such positions will result in personal gain. For example,
becoming a leader may result in an increase in status or in pay. People with a
social-normative motivation become leaders out of a sense of duty. For example,
a member of the Kiwanis Club might agree to be the next president because it is
“his turn”, or a faculty member might agree to chair a committee out of a sense
of commitment to the university.

Individuals
with high leadership motivation tend to obtain leadership experience and have
confidence in their leadership skills (Chan & Drasgow, 2001) as cited in
Aamodt, (2010). Therefore after researching the extent to which leadership is
consistent across life, it makes sense that Bruce (1997) as cited in Aamodt,
(2010) concluded that the best way to select a chief executive officer (CEO) is
to look for leadership qualities (e.g., risk taking, innovation, vision) and
success early in person’s career. As support for his proposition, Bruce cites
the following examples:

1. Harry
Gray, the former chair and CEO of United Technologies, demonstrated vision,
risk taking, and innovation as early as the second job in his career.

2. Ray
Tower, former president of FMC Corporation, went way beyond his job description
as a salesperson in his first job to create a novel sales training program.
Tower continued to push his idea despite upper management’s initial lack of
interest.

3. Lee
Iacocca, known for his heroics at Ford and Chrysler, pioneered the concept of
new car financing. His idea of purchasing a 1956 Ford for monthly payments of
$56 (“Buy a ’56 for $56”) moved his sales division from last in the country to
first. What is most interesting abaout this success is that Iacocca didn’t even
have the authority to implement his plan-but he did it anyway.

The role of
gender in leader emergence is complex. Meta-analysis indicate that men and
women emerge as leaders equally often in leaderless group discussions
(Benjamin, 1996) as cited in Aamodt, 2010), men emerge as leaders more often in
short-term groups and group carrying out tasks with low social interaction
(Eagly & Karau, 1991) as cited in Aamodt, (2010), and women emerge as
leaders more often in groups involving high social interaction (Eagly &
Karau, 1991 as cited in Aamodt, (2010).

Leader
Performance

In contrast
to leader emergence, which deals with the likelihood that a person will become
a leader, leader performance involves the idea that leaders who perform well
possess certain characteristics that poorly performing leaders do not. For
example, an excellent leader might be intelligent, assertive, friendly and
independent, whereas a poor leader might be shy, aloof, and calm. Research on
the relationship between personal characteristics and leader performance has
concentrated on three areas: traits, needs and orientation.

Traits

As shown in
Table 12.1, a mete- analysis by Judge et al (2002) as cited in Aamodt (2010)
found that extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness were
positively related to leader performance. A meta-analysis by Youngjohn and
Woehr (2001) as cited in Aamodt, (2010) also found that management, decision
making, and oral-communication skills were highly correlated with leadership
effectiveness

As was the
case with leader emergence, high self-monitors tend to be better leaders than
do low self-monitors (Day & Schleicher, 2006; Day et al., 2002) as cited in
Aamodt, (2010). The concept of self monitoring is especially interesting, as it
focuses on what leaders do as opposed to what they are. For example, a high
self-monitoring leader may possess the trait of shyness and not truly want to
communicate with other people. She knows, however, that talking to others is an
important part of her job, so she says hello to her employees when she arrives
at work, and at least once a day stops and talks with each employee. Thus, our
leader has the trait of shyness but adapts her outward behavior to appear to be
outgoing and confident.

An
interesting extension of the trait theory of leader performance suggests that
certain traits are necessary requirements for leadership excellence is a
function of the right person being in the right place at the right time. The
fact that one person with certain traits becomes an excellent leader while
another with the same traits flounders may be no more than the result of timing
and chance. For example, Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King, Jr were
considered successful leaders because of their strong influence on improving
civil rights. Other people prior to the 1990s had had same thoughts, ambitions,
and skills as King and Johnson, yet they had not become successful civil rights
leaders, perhaps because the time had not been right.

Cognitive
Ability

A
meta-analysis of 151 studies by Judge et al. (2004) as cited in Aamodt (2010)
found a moderate but significant correlation (r=.17) between cognitive ability
and leadership performance. The mete-analysis further discovered that cognitive
ability is most important when the leader is not distracted by stressful
situations and when the leader uses a more directive leadership style. In
studies investigating the performance of united states Presidents, it was found
that the presidents rates by historians as being the most successful were smart
and open to experience, had high goals, and interestingly had the ability to
bend the truth (Dingfelder, 2004; Rubenzer & Faschinbauer,2004) as cited in
Aamodt (2010) has expanded on the importance of cognitive ability by theorizing
that the key to effective leadership is the synthesis of three variables:wisdom,
intelligence (academic and practical), and creativity.

Needs

A personal
characteristic that has received some support pertains to a leader’s need for
power, need for achievement, and need for affiliation. In fact, as shown in
Table 12.1, a meta- analysis by Argus and Zajack (2008) as cited in Aamodt
(2010) found a significant relationship between need for achievement and leader
performance. Research by McClelland and Burnham (1976) as cited in Aamodt 2010
and McClelland and Botatzis (1982) also as cited in Aamodt 2010 demontrates
that high-performance managers have a leadership motive pattern, which is high
need for power and a low need for affiliation. The need is not for personal
power but for organizational power.

This pattern
of needs is thought to be important because it implies that an effective leader
should be concerned more with results than with being liked. Leader who needs
to be liked by their subordinates will have a tough time making decisions. A
decision to make employees work overtime, for example, may be necessary for the
organization’s survival, but it will probably be unpopular with employees.
Leaders with high affiliation needs may decide that being liked is more
important than being successful, causing conflict with their decision.

This theory
would also explain why internal promotions often do not work. Consider, for
example, a person who worked for six years as a loan officer. He and ten
coworkers often went drinking together after work and went away on weekends.
One day he was promoted to manager, and he had to lead the same people with
whom he had been friends. The friendships and his need to be liked hindered the
new manager when giving orders and disciplining his employees. When he tried to
separate himself from his friends, he was disciplining his employees. When he
tried to separate himself from his friends, he was quickly thought of as being
“too good” for them- a tough situation with no apparent solution, according to
this theory.

This does
not mean that a leader should not be friendly and care about subordinates. But
successful leaders will not place their need to be liked above the goals of the
organization. President Richard Nixon was thought to have a high need to be
liked. He would often make a tough decision and then apologize for it because
he wanted to be liked both the public and the press. Needs for power,
achievement, and affiliation can be measured through various psychology tests.

The most
commonly used is the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) The TAT is a projective test
in which a person is shown a series of pictures and asked to tell a story about
what is happening in each. A trained psychologist then analyzes the stories,
identifying the needs themes contained within them. Obviously, this technique
is time-consuming and requires a great deal of training.

Another
commonly used measure is the Job Choice Exercise (JCE), developed by Stahl and
Harrell (1982) as cited in Aamodt (2010). with the JCE, the person reads
descriptions of jobs that involve varying degrees of power, achievement, and
affiliation needs and rates how desirable he finds each particular job. These
rating are then subjected to a complicated scoring procedure that uses
regression analysis to reveal scores on the tree needs categories.

Another
method to determine leaders’ needs is to examine the themes that occur in their
writing and speeches. In one interesting use of this method, it was found that
Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Reagan had high needs for power;
Presidents Harding, Truman, and Nixon had high needs for affiliation; and
Presidents Wilson, Hoover, and Carter had high needs for achievement
(Winter,1988) as cited in Aamodt (2010).

Gender

As with
leader emergence, meta-analysis suggest that the role of gender in leader
effectiveness is complex. When all studies are combined, men and women appear
not to differ in leadership effectiveness (Eagly Karau, & Makhijani, 1995)
as cited in Aamodt (2010). However, men were more effective as leaders in
situations traditionally defined in less masculine terms. Though men and women
appear to be equally effective leaders, a meta-analysis of leadership style
indicated that women were more likely than men to engage in behaviors
associated with high-quality leadership (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van
Engen, 2003) as cited in Aamodt, (2010)

Task Versus
Person Oriented

Over the
last 45 years, three major schools of thought- Ohio State Studies (Fleishman,
Harris, & Burtt, 1955), Theory X (McGregor, 1960) and Managerial Grid
(Blake & Mouton, 1984) as cited Aamodt, (2010) - have postulated that
differences in leaders performance can be attributed to differences in the
extent to which leaders are task versus person oriented. As shown in Figure
12.1, though the three schools of thought use different terms, they say similar
things.

Person
oriented leaders such as country club leaders, Theory Y leaders, and leaders
high in consideration act in warm and supportive manner and show concern for
their subordinates. Person-oriented leaders believe that employees are
intrinsically motivated, seek responsibility, are self-controlled, and do not
necessarily dislike work. Because of these assumptions, person-oriented leaders
consult their subordinates before making decisions, praise their work, ask
about their families, do not look over their shoulder, and use a more
“hands-off” approach to leadership. Under pressure, person-oriented leaders
tend to become socially withdrawn (Bond,1995) as cited in Aamodt (2010).

Task-oriented
leaders such as task-centered leaders, Theory X leaders, and leaders high in
initiating structure define and structure their own roles and those of their
subordinates to attain the group’s formal goals.

Task
oriented leaders see their employees as lazy, extrinsically motivated, wanting
security, undisciplined, and shirking responsibility. Because of these
assumptions, task oriented leaders tend to manage or lead by giving directives,
setting goals, and making decisions without consulting their subordinates.
Under pressure, they become anxious, defensive, and dominant (Bond, 1995) as
cited in Aamodt, (2010), Interestingly, task-oriented leaders tend to produce
humor (e.g., tell jokes and stories), whereas person-oriented leaders tend to
appreciate humor (e.g., listen to others’ jokes) (Philbrick, 1989) as cited in
Aamodt, (2010). As shown in Figure 12.2, when using the terms from Figure 12.1,
the best leaders (team) are both task and person oriented, whereas the worst
(impoverished) are neither task nor person oriented. Some leaders
(middle-of-the-road) have moderate amounts of both orientations.

A
meta-analysis by Judge, Piccolo, and Ilies (2004) as cited in Aamodt, (2010)
found that higher scores on consideration or on initiating structure were
associated with such positive leadership’s criteria as follower satisfaction
and group performance. The relationship between person orientation
(consideration) and follower satisfaction, follower motivation, and ratings
leadership effectiveness were higher than the relationships between task
orientation (initiating structure) and these same three leadership’s criteria.

A leader’s
task or person orientation can be measured by several instruments two of which
are the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (LOQ) and the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). The LOQ is filled out by supervisors or
leaders who want to know their own behavior style. The LBDQ is completed by
subordinates to provide a picture of how they perceive their leader’s behavior.
A meta-analysis by Eagly and Johnson (1990) as cited in Aamodt, (2010)
indicated that in laboratory studies, women were more likely to have a person
orientation and less likely to have a task orientation than were men. They did
not find any such difference in studies that were conducted in actual
organizations. They did, however, find small gender differences in that women
were more likely to use a more participative approach and more likely to use a
more approach.

As depicted
in Figure 12.2 theoretically, person-oriented leaders should have satisfied
employees, whereas task-oriented leaders should have productive employees.
Leaders scoring high in both (called team leadership) should have satisfied and
productive employees, whereas leaders scoring low in both (called impoverished
leadership) should have unhappy and unproductive employees (Fleishman &
Harris, 1962; Hucthison, Valentino, & Kirkner, 1998; Korman,1966; Pool,
1997) as cited in Aamodt, (2010).

Although
these predictions certainly make sense, the meta-analysis by Judge and his
colleagues (2004) as cited in Aamodt, (2010) found that consideration scores
(person orientation) were strongly correlated with follower satisfaction,
follower motivation, and creating of leadership effectiveness than were
initiating structure scores (task orientation). Correlations with the
performance of the work group were similar in magnitude for both consideration
and initiating structure.

To
complicate matters further, the relationship between person and task
orientation is probably more complex than was first thought. Several studies
have shown that leader experience and knowledge and such external variables as
time pressures and work importance tend to moderate the relationship between
person-orientation scores and satisfaction and between task-orientation scores
and subordinate performance.

Unsuccessful
Leaders

The traits
and behaviors of unsuccessful leaders are not necessarily the opposite of those
of successful leaders (Hackman & Wageman, 2007) as cited in Aamodt, (2010).
In a departure from research to identify characteristics of successful leaders,
Hogan (1989) as cited in Aamodt, (2010) attempted to identify traits of
unsuccessful leaders. Hogan was interested in investigating poor leaders
because, according to both emphirical researches and anecdotal accounts, most
employees report that one of the greatest sources of stress in their jobs is
their supervisors’ poor performance, strange behavior, or both. This finding
should come as no surprise: You can probably quickly recall many examples of
poor performance or strange behavior with current of former supervisors.

Lack of
Training

On the basis
of years of research, Hogan (1989) as cited in Aamodt, (2010) conclude that
poor leader behavior has three major causes. The first is a lack of leadership
training given to supervisors. The armed forces are among the few organizations
that require supervisors to complete leadership training before taking change
of groups of people. The norm for most organization, however is either to
promote a current employee or hire a new employee and place him directly into
leadership role. If training is ever provided, it is usually after the
promotion and well after supervisor has begun supervising. The serious
consequences of this lack of training can best be understood if we imagine
allowing doctors to perform surgery without training or truck drivers to drive
on the highways without first learning how to drive.

Cognitive
Deficiencies.

The second
cause of poor leadership stems from cognitive deficiencies. Hogan (1989) as
cited in Aamodt, (2010) believes that poor leaders are unable to learn from
experience and are unable to think strategically-they consistently make the
same mistakes and do not plan ahead. Support for this concept comes from the
meta-analysis by Judge et al. (2004) as cited in Aamodt, (2010) which found a
significant relationship between cognitive ability and leader performance.

The manger
of a local convenience store that I frequent is an example of a person who does
not learn from his mistakes. The manager did not give employees their work
schedules until one or two days before they had to work. The employees
complained because the hours always changed and they could not schedule their
personal, family, and social lives. But the manager continued to do it his way,
and most of the employees quit. Eight years later, he still does it his way,
and his employees still leave at a high rate.

Personality

The third,
and perhaps most important, source of poor leadership behavior involves the
personality of the leader. Hogan (1989) as cited in Aamodt, (2010) believed
that many unsuccessful leaders are insecure and adopt one of three personality
types: the paranoid or passive-aggressive, the high likability floater, and the
narcissist.

The source
of insecurity for leaders who are paranoid, passive-aggressive, or both is some
incident in their life in which they felt betrayed. This paranoid/
passive-aggressive leader has deeply rooted, but perhaps unconscious,
resentment and anger. On the surface, these leaders are charming, quiet people
who often compliment their subordinates and fellow workers. But they resent the
success of others and are likely to act against subordinates in a
passive-aggressive manner; that is, on the surface they appear to be
supportive, but at the same time they will “stab’ another person in the back.

The type of
leader who is insecure and seldom rocks the boat or causes trouble is known as
a high-likability floater. This person goes along with the group, is friendly
to everyone, and never challenges anyones’s ideas. Thus, he travels through
life with many friends and no enemies. The reason he has no enemies is because
he never does anything, challenges anyone, or stands up for the rights of his
employees. Such leaders will be promoted and never fired because even though
they make no great performance advances, they are well liked. Their employees
have high morale but show relatively low performance.

Narcissists

Are leaders
who overcome their insecurity by overconfidence. They like to be the center of
attention, promote their own accomplishments, and take most, if not all, of the
credit for the success of their groups-but they avoid all blame for failure.

Rather than
concentrate on traits as did Hogan, Shen and her colleagues (2008) as cited in
Aamodt, (2010) collected critical incidents of an ineffective leader behavior
and found that such behavior fell under ten basic dimensions:

1. Engaging
in illegal and unethical behavior

2. Avoiding
conflict and people problems

3.
Demonstrating poor emotional control (e.g., yelling and screaming)

4.
Over-controlling (e.g., micromanaging)

5.
Demonstrating poor task performance

6. Poor
planning, organization, and communication

7. Starting
or passing on rumors or sharing confidential information

8.
Procrastinating and not meeting time commitments

9. Failing
to accommodate the personal needs of subordinates

10. Failing
to nurture and manage talent

Issues
include the factors which influence the amount of effort expended at work, the
influence of job satisfaction on levels of performance and organizational
commitment, the processes that underly group behaviour and decision making, and
the exercise of power and influence in organizations. Also of interest is the
nature of leadership and followership, and the management of organizational
change.

So far we
have largely been talking about top management. The focus on top management has
also led to a renewed interest in the process of leadership both within senior
teams and at every level within the organization (see, e.g., Schruijer, 1992;
Sparrow, 1994 as cited in Doyle 2002). Shell for instance, encapsulates its
vision as “Leaders leading Leaders” (Steel, 1997 as cited in Doyle 2002). Much
is made of the ability to formulate and communicate vision. From ideas such as
this, Bass and his colleagues proposed the concept of transformational
leadership, in which the leader’s ability to inspire and empower followers and
to create a belief in the attainability of the vision are stressed
(Bass,1999;Bass & Avolio, 1990 as cited in Doyle 2002). Many culture change
programmes begin with leadership development of senior managers, which then
spreads more widely throughout the organization. Schruijer and Vansina (1999a,
1999b) as cited in Doyle 2002 edit and provide a commentary on a fascinating
collection of papers that consider the role of leadership in organizational
change. They raise a number of important and difficult questions concerning
top-level leadership in organizations, including the extent to which one should
focus on the individual qualities of the leader or on the incredibly complex
set of relationships between leaders and followers. For instance, followers may
exhibit dependence on, trust in, loyalty, and commitment to the leader but
nevertheless aspire to an complete strongly for his or her job (Berg, 1998 as
cited in Doyle 2002). Schruijer and Vansina conclude that one thing
characterizing successful leaders in today’s turbulent business environment is
their capacity to collaborate with diverse groups and stakeholders to achieve
strategic objectives. The dynamics of this kind of shared leadership are
illuminated by the work of De Vries, Roe, and Tailieu (1999) as cited in Doyle
2002 and Rijaman (1999) as cited in Doyle 2002, who both emphasize a
“follower-centred” approach. Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Matcalfe (2000) as cited
in Doyle 2002 are also considering the influence of “nearby” leaders rather
than top management and conceptualizing the former as “servants” to their
followers. However, as Bass (1999) as cited in Doyle 2002 and others have
stressed, transformational leadership is needed as well as more mundane
management that organizes and coordinates work and provides the structure for
implementing the fine detail of change.

LITERATURE
REVIEW

Leadership
has always been an important topic in work and organizational psychology and
much research has been devoted to the topic. This chapter describes the
developments in this field over the last decades. Traits, style, and contingency
theories of leadership in organizations are presented, as well as several
alternative approaches to studying leadership. Special attention is also given
to transformational/ charismatic leadership. The growing importance of global
and international world business creates a strong demand for managers who are
sophisticated in international management and skilled at working with people
from other countries. This has resulted in increased attention for
cross-cultural perspectives the leadership field. Other currents of change,
such as the developing information technology and the increased importance of
team and other lateral organizing mechanisms are influencing work and
organizations in a pervasive manner. We conclude the chapter by presenting several
possible ways in which these trends may change the role of leadership in future
organizations.

Legends and
myths about what distinguishes “great leaders” from “commoners” seem to have
always attracted people. Bass writes: “The study of leadership rivals in age
the emergence of civilization, which shaped its leaders as much as it was
shaped by them. From its infancy, the study of history has been the study of
leaders-what they did and why they did it’ (1990a:3) as cited in Den Hartog and
Koopman (2001). Leadership still fascinates scholars as well as the general
public. However, the term “leadership means different things to different
people. Definitions of leadership vary in terms of emphasis on leader
abilities, personality traits, influence relationship, cognitive, versus
emotional orientation, individual versus group orientation, and appeal to self
versus group orientation, and appeal to self versus collective interests.
Definitions also vary in whether they are primary descriptive or normative in nature
as in their relative emphasis on behavioural styles (Den Hartog, Koopman,
Theirry, Wilderom, Maczynski & Jarmuz, 1997) as cited in Den Hartog and
Koopman, 2001. Leadership is sometimes distinguished from management (e.g.,
Kotter, 1990; Zaleznik,1977) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman, 2001 or seen
as one of several managerial roles (e.g., Mintzberg, 1989) as cited in Den
Hartog and Koopman, 2001.

Bryman
(1992) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman et al.,2001 states that most
definitions of leadership emphasize three main elements: group, influence, and
goal.. Table 9.1 provides several examples of definitions of leadership.

Table 9.1
Defining Leadership (Den Hartog and Koopman, 2001)

Anglo_Saxon
definitions of Leadership

o Leadership
is the influential increment over and above mechanical compliance with the
routine directives of the organization (Kartz & Kahn, 1978) as cited in Den
Hartog and Koopman, 2001.

o Leadership
is the process of influencing the activities of an organized group toward goal
achievement (Rauch & Behling, 1984) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman,
2001.

o Yukl
(1998) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman, 2001 broadly defined leadership as
influence processes affecting the interpretation of even followers, the choice
of objectives for the group or organization, the organization of work
activities to accomplish the objectives, the motivation of followers to achieve
the objectives, the maintainance of cooperative relationships and teamwork,and
the enlistment of support and cooperation from people outside the group or
organization.

o Leadership
is defined in terms of a process of social influence whereby a leader steers
members of a group towards a goal (Bryman, 1992) as cited in Den Hartog and
Koopman, 2001

o Leadership
is the ability of an individual to motivate others to forego self interest in
the interest of a collective vision, and to contribute to the attainment of
that vision and to the collective by making significant personal
self-sacrifices over and above the call of duty, willingly (House & Shamir,
1993) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman, 2001.

Another way to view leadership is in terms of
the different domains leadership encompasses. Most approaches to leadership
have been leader-centered. However, one can distinguish between the leader,
followers, and relationship domain of leadership (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995)
as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman, 2001. In all three domains, difference
levels of analysis (i.e., individual, dyad. Group or larger collectivities) can
be the focus of investigation (e.g., Yammarino & Bass, 1991).

According to
Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman, 2001, leader
behaviour and characteristics and their effects are the primary issues of
concern in the leader-based domain. A follower-based approach would lead to
hypotheses focusing on follower issues such as follower characteristics,
behaviours, and perceptions or topics such as empowerment (e.g., Hollander,
1992; Meindl, 1990) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman, 2001.

A
relationship-based model takes the relationship between leader and follower as
the starting point for research and theory building. Issues of concern are
reciprocal influence and the development and maintainance of effective
relationships (e.g., Bryman, 1992; Graen & Scandura, 1987) as cited in Den
Hartog and Koopman, 2001. Graen and Uhl-Bien note that a multiple domain
approach should be taken more often and that ‘careful sampling from multiple
domains within the same investigation should account for more of the potential
leadership contribution, and thus increase the predictive validity and
practical usefulness of our Stusies’ (1995: 221).

As stated,
most research in the leadership field so far has been done from a
leader-centered point of view. The following section presents an overview of
the major developments in leadership research and theory to date. This is
followed by more extensive treatment of the most recent trend in leadership
research, which focuses on so-called charismatic, transformational, or
inspirational leadership. The growing importance of global and international
world business creates a strong demand for managers who are sophisticated in
international management and skilled at working with people from other
countries (Adler, 1991) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman (2001). This has led
to increase attention for cross-cultural perspectives the leadership foeld.
Therefore, the topic of international and cross-cultural research into
leadership is also discussed. A discussion of the future of leadership and
future leadership research concludes this chapter (Den Hartog and Koopman,
2001.)

TRENDS AND
DEVELOPMENTS IN LEADERSHIP RESEARCH

Leadership
has been an important topic of investigation, especially in North America, for
many decades, several main trends can be distinguished in the development of
the study of (business) leadership. Prior to the 1980s the main approaches to
leadership were the traits, style, and contingency approach. Table 9.2 presents
a historical overview of the main trends in the leadership field. The dates in
this table represent rough indications of the periods in which the emphasis was
on that approach. A new stage was completely abandoned; rather, a shift in
emphasis occurred (Bass, 1990a; Bryman, 1992) as cited in Den Hartog and
Koopman, 2001. Several alternative ways to conceptualize and study leadership
have had a profound influence on the development of ideas about and research
into leadership from the early 1980s onward. Below, the three aforementioned
main trends and several of these alternative approaches to leadership will be
described.

The Traits
Approach

Early
research into leadership can be characterized as a search for ‘the great man.’
Personal characteristics of leaders were emphasized and the implicit idea was
that leaders are born rather than made. All leaders were supposed to have
certain stable characteristics that made them into leaders. The focus was on
identifying and measuring traits that distinguished leaders from non leaders or
effectives from ineffective leaders (Hollander & Offermann, 1990) as cited
in Den Hartog and Koopman, 2001. From these distinctions between leaders and
non leaders, a profile of an ‘ideal’ leader could be derived, which could serve
as the basis for selection of future leaders.

Three main
categories of personal characteristics were include in the search for the
‘great man.’ First, physical features, such as height, physique, appearance,
and age. Second, ability characteristics such as intelligence, knowledge, and
fluency of speech. And third, personality traits such as dominance, emotional
control and expressiveness, and introversion-extraversion (Bryman,1992) as
cited in Den Hortog and Koopman, page167, (2001).

Table 9.2
Trends in leadership theory and research

Period
Approach Core theme

Up to late
1940s Trait Leadership are born, leadership as an innate ability

Late 1940s
to late 1960s

Style

What do they do; effectiveness has to do with
how the leader behaves

Late 1960s
to early 1980s

Contingency It all depends; effectiveness of
leadership is affected by the situation/ context

Research up
to 1950 failed to yield a consistent picture of leader traits, therefore
research into this area slowed. After about 25 years the interest in traits
possessed by leaders revived. In 1974, after reviewing 163 studies that had
been reported between 1949 and 1970, Stogdill shows that contrary to what had
been conclude from earlier reviews several universal personal traits and skills
(such as vigor and persistence in the pursuit of goals, self-confidence and
tolerance for uncertainty and frustration) were indeed associated with
leadership (Bass, 1990a) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman, 2001. Other
studies have also shown that traits or personal characteristics do indeed play
a more significant role in leadership than was concluded earlier (e.g.,
Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Lord, De Vader & Allinger, 1986) as cited in
Den Hartog and Koopman, 2001; Kirkpatrick and Locke’s (1991) as cited in Den
Hartog and Koopman, 2001 review suggests that drive, a desire to lead, honesty
and integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability, and knowledge of the
business are personal characteristics that distinguish leaders from non
leaders. Other traits predicting effective leadership include: high energy
level and stress tolerance, internal locus of control orientation, emotional
maturity, socialized power motivation, moderate achievement motivation, and a
low need for affiliation. (Yukl, 1998) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman
(2001).

The type of ‘traits’ under consideration in
this ‘reviving’ trait approach are different form the early studies. Bryman
(1992) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman,2001 warn that there is a danger that
the term ‘traits’ become so stretched that it applies to many variable on which
leaders and nonleaders differ, even certain behavioral patterns such as those
discussed below. Thus, although there has been a resurgence of interest in the
trait approach the way in which traits are treated has changed. Also, traits
are now considered along with other (situational and behavioral) variables.

Disillusionment
followed the lack of empirical evidence for the existence of a ‘leadership
traits profile’ in the early years of trait research. This led to a new
emphasize in leadership research, the style approach.

Leadership
style

The second
major trend in researching leadership emphasized leadership behavior . The
focus shifted from who leaders are (traits) to what leaders do (behavioral
style). In this approach, effectiveness of leaders is dependent on the exerted
leadership style. Whereas tha traits approach focused on stable personal
characteristics which were usually thought to be largely innate (impliying
selection of effective leaders rather than training), the style approach
implied that leadership is a behavior pattern, which can be learned. Thus,
according to this approach, once one was able to discover the ‘right’ style,
people could be trained to exhibit that behavior and become better leaders
(Bass, 1990a; Bryman, 1992) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman (2001).

Most
influential in this period was probably the series of questionnaire-based Ohio
State studies. The Ohio State researchers concluded that leadership style could
best be described as varying along two dimension, i.e., ‘consideration’ and
‘initiating structure’ (e.g., Fleishman & Harris, 1962) as cited in Den
Hartog and Koopman (2001). A second major research program concerning leader
behavior in this period was carried out at the University of Michigan. The
results of these studies (summarized by Likert, 1961, 1967) as cited in Den
Hartog and Koopman,(2001) show that they found three types of leader behavior
differentiating between effective and ineffective managers: task-oriented
behavior, relationship-oriented behavior, and participative leadership.

Some
researchers proposed ‘universal’ theories of effective leader behavior, stating
that, for instance, effective leaders are both people- and task- oriented,
so-called ‘high-high’ leaders. Blake and Mouton’s (1982) as cited in Den Hartog
and Koopman (2001) managerial grid is an example of such a ‘high-high’ theory.
Other prominent ‘universal’ theories were based on the idea that leaders who
make extensive use of participative decision procedures are more effective than
other leaders (e.g., Likert, 1967; Mc Gregor, 1960) as cited in Den Hartog and
Koopman (2001).

Criticism of
Style Approach

There have
been many criticisms of the style approach. Among the criticisms are the
inconsistent findings and measurement problems, the problem of causality, the
problem of the group, informal leadership, and most pressing, the lack of
situational analysis (Bryman, 1992) as cited in Den hartog and Koopman (2001).
Korman (1966) as cited in Den hartog and Koopman (2001) showed that the
magnitude and direction of correlations between leadership styles and outcomes
were highly variable and divergent. Often, correlations were not statistically
significant (see also Bass, 1990a) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman (2001).
Identified measurement problems include response tendencies such as leniency
effects and contamination by subordinate’s implicit theories of leadership.
Assumed causality was a problem in the early studies (this also goes for trait
studies). These studies were usually cross-sectional, meaning that the notion
that leadership style constitutes the independent rather tahan the dependent
variable is an assumption in stead of a conclusion based on investigation of
this view. Since then it has been shown that causality can run both ways (Bryman,
1992) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman (2001).

The problem
of the group refers to the tendency in leadership research to focus on the
group level rather than the individual or dyad levels of analysis. We will
return to this below when briefly discussing the vertical dyad linkage (VDL)
approach as an alternative way to study leadership. Most research described
above was directed at formal, designated leaders who might behave different
than informal leaders.Also, where designated leaders are not the actual group
leaders the questions are probably not about the ‘right’ person (Bryman, 1992)
as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman (2001).Informal and emergent leadership are
still rarely studied.

The failure
of the style approach to pay attention to situational characteristics that act
as possible moderators of the relationship between leadership and outcomes is
probably its most serious problem. Possible moderators include task
characteristics (e.g., complexity, interdependence) and subordinate
characteristics ( e.g., experience, motivation), but environment factors or
organizational culture could also influence the shape or form of the
relationship between leadership style and outcomes. Attempts to address this
situational issues led to the next main trend, contingency approaches to study
leadership.

Contingency
Approaches

As stated,
many contingency approaches can be considered as an attempt to repair what
researchers saw as the deficiency of the aforementioned approaches (Smith &
Peterson, 1988) as cited in Den hartog and Koopman (2001). The main proposition
in contingency approaches is that the effectiveness of a given leadership style
is contingent on the situation, implying that certain leader behaviors will be
effective in some situations but not in others.

Fiedler’s
Model

The earliest
contingency theory of leader effectiveness was the theory by Fiedler (1967) as
cited in Denhartog and Koopman (2001). Fiedler is well-known and heavily
criticized for his least-preferred-worker’ (LPC) measure. The basic assumption
is that a leader’s description of the person with whom he the greatest
difficulty working reflects a basic leadership style. A second assumption is
that which of the basic leadership styles contributes most to group performance
varies wth the ‘situation favorability.’ This favorability is determined by
weighting and combining three aspect s of the situation, namely leader-member
relations, position power and task structure. For instance, a situation is
least favorable for a leader when leader-member relations are poor, position
power is low and the task is unstructured. The model predicts that when the
situation is either highly favorable or very unfavorable, low LPC leaders are
more effective than high LPC leaders. In intermediate situations, high LPC
leaders should be more effective than low LPC leaders. Support for the model is
at best weak.

More
recently, Fiedler and Garcia (1987) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman (2001)
developed a model that deals with the cognitive abilities of leaders ( cognitive
resources theory) According to this model, group performance depends on an
interaction between two ‘traits’ (leader intelligence and experience), one type
of leadership behavior (directive) and two aspects of situation (interpersonal
stress and the nature of group task). So far, there is little emphirical
support for this model.

Hersey and
Balanchard’s (1969, 1977) as cieted in Den Hartog and Koopman (2001)
situational leadership theory (SLT) has been a popuplar basis for leadership
training for many years. Originally SLT proposes that leaders should attune
their behavior to fot with the ‘maturity’ or in later writings the ‘
development level’ of the team as a whole as well as its individual members.
Combining high or low task and relationship behavior creates four different
leadership styles: telling (high task, low relations); selling (high, high);
participating (low task, high relations); and delegating (low,low). These
styles are more or less appropriate for different types of team members. For
team members who are, for instance, low on willingness and ability a ‘telling’
style is appropriate. The emphirical evidence for the theory is scant (Bass,
1990a; Yukl, 1998) as cited in Den hartog and Koopman (2001).

The
Normative Decision-Making Model

Another
widely known contingency theory focuses on criteria to determine whether or not
a leader should involve subordinates in different kinds of decision making
(Vroom & Yetton, 1973) as cited in Den hartog and Koopman (2001). The
importance of using decision procedures that are appropriate for the situation
has been recognized for some time (Heller, Pusic, Strauss & Wilpert, 1998;
Yukl, 1998) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman (2001). For instance, Tannenbaum
and Schmidt (1958) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman (2001) noted that a
leader choice of decision procedures reflects forces in the leader, the
subordinates and the situation. Also Maier (1963) recognized the need for
leaders to consider both the quality requirements of the decision and the
likelihood of subordinates acceptance before choosing a decision procedure.

Vroom and
Yetton (1973) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman (2001) go beyond these
approaches. In their model they try to indicate which decision procedure will
be most effective in a specific situation. They distinguish five decision
procedures, namely two type autocratic decision (AI and AII), two types of
consultative decision (CI and CII), and one joint decision by leader and group
(GII). AI entails that manger decides without asking others for input such as
opinions or suggestions. In AII, a manager gathers the necessary information
from subordinates (with or without explaining the problem at hand), then makes
the decision. CI means sharingthe problem with individual subordinates and
considering their ideas and suggestions and CII involves getting them together
as a group and sharing the problem. In both C cases, the manager still decides,
and the decision may or may not reflect subordinates’ opinions. Finally GII
implies sharing the problem with subordinates and that the solution should
reflect agreement (consensus) of the group. The manager accepts and implements
any decision the group reaches and does not have more influence over the final
decision than others

The Vroom
and Yetton model predict that the effectiveness of these decision procedures
depends on several aspects of the situation, including the amount of relevant
information held by leader and subordinates, the likelihood subordinates will
accept an autocratic decision, and the extent to which the decision problem is
unstructured. The model also provides a set of rules that help identify whether
a decision procedure in a given situation is inappropriate ((i.e., would it
jeopardize decision quality and/ or acceptance?). For instance, when
subordinates possess relevant information the leader does not have, an
autocratic decision may not be appropriate because the leader would lack
relevant information that needs to be considered. This model was updated and
extended by Vroom and Jago (1988) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman (20010).
Their revised version of the model takes some important aspects of the
situation into account that the earlier model lacks (e.g., serious time
constraints and geographical dispersion of subordinates). The model can be
considered normative in the sense that it prescribed ‘rules’ for leaders to
follow in order to make the best decisions under different circumstances. There
is some emphirical support for the model; however, it deals with a relatively
small part of leadership and also has some conceptual weaknesses (see Yukl,
1998 for an overview)

Path-Goal
Theory

The most
influential and complete contingency theory to date is probably House’s
path-goal theory of leadership (House, 1970; House & Mitchell, 1974) as
cited in Den Hartog and Koopman (2001). This dyadic theory of supervision
describes how many formally appointed superiors affect the motivation and
satisfaction of subordinates (House. 1996) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman
(2001). House and Micthell advanced two general proposition: (1) Leader
behavior is accepted and satisfying to subordinates to the extent that
subordinates see such behavior as either an immediate source of or instrumental
to future satisfaction; (2) leader behavior is motivational (i.e., increases
follower effort) to extent that such behavior makes follower need satisfaction
contingent on effective performance and to the extent that such behavior
complements and environment of subordinates by providing guidance, support, and
rewards necessary for effective performance (1974: 84) Leaders will be
effective to the extent that they complement the environment in which their
subordinates work by providing the necessary cognitive clarifications to ensure
that subordinates expect they can attain goals (i.e., path-goal clarifying
behavior), and to the exent that subordinates experience intrinsic satisfaction
and receive valent rewards as a direct result of attaining those work goals
(i.e., behavior directed toward satisfying subordinate needs (House, 1996) as
cited in Den hartog and Koopman (2001). House and Mitchell (1974) as cited in
Den hartog and Koopman (2001) specify four types of leader behavior; directive
path-goal clarifying behavior, supportive leader behavior, participative leader
behavior, and achievement-oriented behavior. Proposal effects of leader
behavior include subordinate motivation, satisfaction, and performance. Task
and subordinate characteristics are treated as moderator variables.

Bryman
(1992) as cited in Den hartog and Koopman (2001) describes several general
problems with path-goal theory. Many aof these problems are shared with the
aforementioned Ohio tradition of investigating leadership style (e.g.,
inconsistent findings, problem associated with the using group average methods
of describing leaders, no attention for informal leadership, problem with
causality and potential measurement problems). However, according to Evans
(1996) as cited in Den hartog and Koopman (2001) the theory has not adequately
been tested..

1. Visionary
leadership: the ability of the management to establish, practice, and lead a
long-term vision for organization driven by customer requirements.

2. Internal
external cooperation : the propensity of the organization to engage in
noncompetitive activities internally among employees and externally with
respect to suppliers.

3. Learning:
the organizational capability to recognized and nurture the development of its
skills, abilities, and knowledge base.

4. Process
management: the set of methodological and behavioral practices emphasizing the
management of process, or means of actions, rather than results.

5.
Continuous improvement: the propensity of the organization to pursue
incremental and innovative improvements of processes, products and services.

6. Employee
fulfillment: the degree to which employees of an organization feel that the
organization continually satisfies their need.

Anderson et
al., offer the following statement that summarizes the quality management
approach: ‘ The effectiveness of the Deming management method arises from
leadership efforts toward the simultaneous creation of a cooperative and
learning organization to facilitate the implementation of process management
practices, which when implemented, support customer satisfaction and
organizational survival through sustained employee fulfillment and continuous
improvement of process, product and services’ (1994:479-480).

ALTERNATIVE
APPROACHES TO STUDYING LEADERSHIP

The general
dissatisfaction and pessimism that arose from the inconsistent research
findings on the different contingency models stimulated several researchers to
search for more or less radical ‘remedies’ to revive leadership theory. Smith
and Peterson (1988) list five such remedies:

1. Replace
leader style measures by measures of rewrd and punishment.

2.
Differentiate between subordinates.

3. Review
the circumstances which call for leadership

4. Examine
leaders’ perceptions of subordinates

5. Reexamine
the basis of subordinates’ perceptions of leaders.

A sixth that
can be added to these is focusing on the use of power and influence tactics rather
than on ‘leadership’ (e.g., Yukl & Falbe, 1990) as cited in Den Hartog and
Koopman (2001). These ‘remedies’ reflect three broad developments. First, the
tendency to relate the study of leadership to theoretical developments in other
areas of social, cognitive, and organizational psychology as well as to those
in other social sciences. Second, to pay more attention to the role of
cognition and perceptions of those (both leaders and subordinates ) under
study. Third, to use greater control through more sophisticated statistical
techniques and different methodologies, including experiments (Smith &
Peterson, 1988) as cited in Den Hartog and Koopman (2001)

The insight
that the exercise of leadership is a part of organizational processes and that
the nature and the effects of leadership are therefore strongly dependant on
that context, is relatively new. Until quite recently, theories confined
themselves to the leader’s personality and characteristics.

Leadership
traits

The theory
of leadership traits is founded on the assumption that leaders posses certain
personal qualities, such as courage, intelligence, strength of character,
vision, or charisma, which their followers do not posses. Despite its
persistence in the public mind, this approach has enjoyed waning scientific
interest since the 1950s, particularly because it has proved impossible to find
a single set of characteristics that enables a clear and reliable distinction
to be drawn between good and bad leaders or, for that matter, between leaders and
followers. This was found to be the case both in large organizations (Stogdill,
1948, 1974) as cited in Drenth et al. (1998) and in smaller groups (Mann,1959)
as cited in Drenth, 1998.

Nevertheless,
time and again this type of research has been given a new lease of life. Bass
(1981) as cited in Drenth, 1998 has discussed hundreds of leadership-traits
studies. He, too, concludes that leadership as such is not a property of an
individual’s personality, but there are nonetheless certain fixed personal characteristics
that seem to play a part in the exercise of leadership. Recent studies which
made use of so-called “meta-analysis” have also had positive findings on the
contribution made by personal characteristics to observable variation in
leadership performance (Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983; Lord, De Vader, &
Alliger, 1986). House (1977) as cited in Drenth (1998), who developed the
path-Goal theory, which makes particular use of the roles played by situational
and behavioural variables , also calls for renewed attention to leadership
traits. A related approach is one that stresses not so much individual skills
and personality traits, as managers motives (especially motives related to
power and performance) (McClelland, 1975; McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982) as
cited in Drenth, 1998 or patterns of motives (Stahl, 1983; Cornelius &
Lane, 1984) as cited in Drenth, 1998.

House and
Baetz (1979,p.352) as cited in Drenth, 1998 argue for a more differentiated
approach than the traditional one, aimed at finding universal relations, i..e.,
traits that are important in all situations. They argue that certain
characteristics are only important in certain circumstances. This can be
demonstrated with the help of Stogdill’s correlations of .38, .40, and .60
between athletic capacities and leadership in youth groups, whereas in other
situations the same capacity hardly plays a role at all.

Personal
characteristics can also moderate the effect of leadership behavior on
production and satisfaction (cf. Johnson, Luthans, & Hennessy, 1984)as
cited in Drenth (1998). This warrants giving careful attention to House and
Baetz suggestion to concentrate on analyzing the interactions between certain
traits, and to discover the possible relations between leaders’ characteristics
and leadership behavior rather than those between leaders’ characteristics and
group performance. This less universal, strongly differentiated approach may
help to dispel the bad reputation that the study of leadership traits has
acquired, and thus confirm the common-sense view that some “have a natural
aptitude” for leadership and others do not.

Leadership
styles

Although
insight into the personal characteristics the leaders may be useful for
selecting leaders, in every life it is far more important to know how certain
kinds of behaviour affect attitudes and behavior of group. It is usually not so
very important to know which properties cause a leader to behave as he or she
does. Moreover, the causes for a given behavior may differ considerably.

For
instance, regulating behavior may be due to a variety of reasons or motives. A
person may like to put things in order because he fears unforeseen events, but
he may also do it for aesthetics reasons. Leaders may want to share power
because they are afraid of burning their fingers, or because they adhere to
theory Y, or because they appreciate their colleagues, or because they feel
that by letting them share they can improve the relationship (Volleberg, 1973,
p235) as cited in Drenth (1998).

Empirical
research on leadership as it takes shape both in small informal groups and in
formal organizations resulted in the identification of a limited number of
dimensions so called “leadership styles”. In the following section, special
attention will be devoted to consideration, initiating structure, and
participation, the three basic dimensions according to – among others-Capbell
et al., 1970) as cited in Drenth, 1998. The first two have primarily been
measured by means of the “Ohio State Leadership Scale” (see Fleishman, Harris,
& Burt, 1955) as cited in Drenth, 1998. In addition, a few other
classifications will be briefly discussed.

Consideration
and initiating structure

Research on
small groups has repeatedly demonstrated the existence of two central
functions, i.e. fulfillment of the group task and stimulating and taking care
of good mutual relations. On the basis of factor analysis of behaviour
descriptions of numerous formal organizations researches from the Ohio State
University came to similar conclusion. They named the two dimensions
“initiating structure” and “consideration”. In the Dutch literature these are
usually descriped as instrumental and social leadership (Philipsen, 1965) as
cited in Drenth, 1998 or task oriented and socio-emotional leadership (Mulder,
Ritsema Van Eck, & Van Gils, 1967) as cited in Drenth, 1998.

Consideration

This
reflects the degree to which the leader’s behaviour towards the group members
is characterized by mutual trust, development of good relations sensitivity to
the feelings of group members, and openness to their suggestions.

Initiating
Structure

This
reflects the degree to which a leader is bent on defining and structuring the
various tasks and roles of group members in order to attain group results.

Various
scales were devised with which these dimensions could be measured; the
Leadership Opinion Questionnaire-a Likert-type scale which measures how the
leader thinks she should behave-and three versions of the Leader Behaviour
Description Questionnaire (the 1975 SBDQ, the 1957 LBDQ, and the revised
version of the latter the 1963 LBDQ-XII) as cited in Drenth, 1998. The last
three measure how group members perceive the actual behaviour of their leader.
With the help of these scales numerous studies have been carried out. Surveys
of these studies can be found in Korman (1966) Kerr and Schriesheim (1974) as
cited in Drenth, 1998, and elsewhere Stogdill’s handbook (1974) as cited in
Drenth, 1998 also supplies much information on this subject.

Summarizing
the results of the many studies we can conclude that socio-emotional leadership
is positively related to satisfaction of the group members, whereas
task-oriented leadership is positively related to group performance. It should
be noted that task-oriented leadership without personal attention to group
members may have negative effects on satisfaction and even on performance
(Fleishman & Harris, 1962; Schriesheim & Murphy, 1976). This could imply
that socio-emotional leadership has a moderating effect on the relation between
task-oriented leadership and performance. If socio-emotional leadership scores
high there is a positive relationship between task-oriented leadership and
performance; If socio-emotional leadership scores low, the relationship is low
or negative. These and similar results lead to the conclusion that the ideal
leader should combine both aspects of leadership.

Reddin
(1970) and Kerr, Schriesheim, Murphy, and Stogdill (1974) as cited in Drenth,
1998 adopt a more subtle perspective, asserting that the best approach depends
on the situation and on the task in hand; in so doing they move a step closer
to the contingency approach (see the following section).

Although the
scales mentioned in the foregoing were carefully constructed, and much energy
criticism. Schriesheim and Stogdill (1976) and Schriesheim, House, and Kerr
(1976) as cited in Drenth, 1998 in particular studied the comparability of the
various scales. They discovered was spent in validating and improving them,
they have met with rather severe that the scales only partly measure the same
thing, and on the basis of this discovery they were able to explain the
divergent results of various studies. Notably the early versions of the
initiating structure scales appeared to measure two dimensions. On the one
hand, high production is highlighted with items such as “he emphasizes the
meeting of deadlines”, and “he encourages overtime work”. On the other hand,
there are items that deal with the structuring, i.e. clarifying, of situations;
for example, “she lets group members know what is expected of tem”, and “she
schedules the work to be done”. The original SBDQ scale contained both kinds of
items and original SBDQ scale contained both kinds of items and therefore
produced ambiguous results. Thus giving greater weight to performance may have
a negative effect on professional workers, whereas structuring the problem may
have a positive effect. The subsequent versions of this scale were clearly
oriented towards the structuring of activities.

Moreover,
the “Consideration” scale too does not contain a completely homogeneous set of
items. A distinction can be made between warmth and trust on the one hand, “he
is friendly and approachable”, and participation and decision-making on the
other, “ he acts without consulting the group”. Unfortunately, in the last
version of the consideration scale (LBDQ-XIII) the second dimension is
over-represented. Participative leadership will be discussed in greater detail
later.

Participative
leadership

We can be
rather brief about this leadership style. First, this subject is discussed in
various other chapters of this handbook. Second, an extensive survey of the
numerous studies in this field has been published by Locke and Schweiger (1979)
as cited in Drenth (1998). Third, the conclusions drawn in this overview hardly
differ from conclusions made by others long ago (see, for instance, Drenth and
Thierry (1970) as cited in Drenth (1998). A number of these conclusions can be
summarized as follows:

1.
Participative decision-making usually leads to satisfaction with this decision
making. According to Locke’s survey, this obtains for both laboratory studies
and for correlational and longitudinal field studies: 60% of the studies there
was a positive correlation, in 30% no correlation, and in 10% a negative
correlation. Similar figures can be deduced from Stogdill’s (1974) as cited in
Drenth, 1998 data (67%, 20%, and 8%). It is not always clear which processes
are responsible for this relation. A plausible explaination would be that, on
the one hand, participation meets the need for participation as such-in that it
implies the acknowledgement of someone’s contribution or makes use of someone’s
knowledge or skills (Wall & Lischeron,1977) as cited in Drenth,
1998-whereas, on the other hand, it offers the possibility of attaining other
important goals (better decision-making, better relations, more information)

2.
Participative decision-making rarely leads to increased motivation,
performance, or productivity. According to Locke, in 22% of the cases there was
a positive relationship, in 56% there was no relationship, and in 22% there was
a negative relationship. Stogdill’s results are 30%, 57%, and 13%,
respectively. Presumably, the reason for this is that the relations between the
participation concept, which varies considerably according to the situation,
and the performance concept, which is determined by numerous factors, are very
complex and largely depend on situational variables.

3. Many
factors have been tested for their moderating effect on the relationship
between participation and performance (Drenth & Theirry,1970; Koopman,1980)
as cited in Drenth, 1998. Without going into the details of this research, the
most important of these results are follows.

The
principal factors are frequently held to be the levels of knowledge,
intelligence and expertise amongst the group members (Locke & Schweiger,
1979; House & Baetz, 1979) as cited in drenth, 1998: the more effective
participative leadership becomes. The same applies to motivation and the
perceived need for participation amongst the group members (Vroom, 1964; House
& Baetz, 1979) as cited in Drenth, 1998. The nature of the task in hand (routine/
complex, structured/ unstructured, problem-free/ crisis situation, see Thomson
& Tuden, 1959; Duncan, 1973; vroom, 1967; vroom & Yetton, 1973; Mulder
et al., 1967; Mulder, De Jong, Koppelaar, & Verhage, 1986) and the
importance of the decision to be taken (Heller & Wilpert, 1981; Heller,
drenth, Koopman, & Rus, 1988) also play a significant role. The more
complex and important the task, the more effective the participative
leadership. The nature of the environment must also be mentioned: The less controllable
and the more turbulent the situation, the more effective participation becomes
(Vroom & Yetton, 1973) as cited in Drenth, 1998. The acceptance of the
leader figure and the trust placed in that person (Fiedler, 1967) and that
person’s influence in higher echelons (Pelz, 1951, 1952) as cited in Drenth,
1998. Also appear to be important moderators. Heller et al. (1988; see also
Koopman & Drenth, 1980a; Drenth & Koopman,1984) as cited in Drenth,
1998 showed that, besides the importance of the decision, the particular phase
of the decision, the particular phase of the decision-making prosess also
mattered. In implementation or development phases, for instance, authoritarian
behavior by top management has more negative effects than it does in the finalization
of the decision-forming process. The same study also showed that in more
serious conflicts, reduced mutual trust and vaguer objectives actually raised
the effectiveness of participative leadership. It is indeed remarkable that
most overviews pay practically no attention to instruments for measuring the
degree of participative leadership.

METHODOLOGY

Using 100
test items which will be answered by 215 respondences in the Department of
Wildlife and National Park (DWNP) These 100 test items.

Scale for
no. 1 to 24 and 43 to 57

1_strongly
disagree

2_disagree

3_neutral

4_agree

5_disagree

1. If I
assign one of my tasks to someone else I am concerned that the person won’t do
as good of a job as I would

2. I feel
that I inspire other employees - I influence how they think, act, and
accomplish goals.

3.
Problem-solving is serious business; it's not supposed to be fun or humorous.

4. When
confronted with a problem I’ve never dealt with before, I research different
ways in which I could solve it.

5. When it
comes to problem-solving, I prefer making use of previous experiences and
applying a method or approach that has worked before.

6. I am open
to ideas that come to me when I am not working.

7. I feel
confident that others will accept my ideas and decisions.

8. Managers
must behave in a trustworthy way to set an example for employees.

9. I have a
clear vision of where my group/organization is headed.

10. I have a
good sense of which employees/teams have the greatest potential in terms of helping
the organization achieve its long-term objectives.

11. As a
manager, I would feel comfortable asking my subordinates' opinions and ideas on
projects.

12. Part of
being a good leader is harnessing the strengths of each employee to do the best
possible job.

13. A
manager’s performance will be improved by asking for other people’s point of
view.

14. It's not
a problem if I bend some of the rules in order to get ahead.

15. If
forced to choose, I would do the right thing (i.e. follow the legal or ethical
standards of my profession) rather than what is easier or more profitable.

16. Most
people are untrustworthy.

17. If I
hand over one of my tasks to another person, I lose control of the final
product.

18. As a
manager, I would hesitate to ask advice from subordinates.

19. It’s up
to me to set the bar for how hard people in my organization work.

20. If I
don’t work hard, other people will think they don’t have to either.

21. Trust no
one.

22. Losing
is shameful.

23. I find
it difficult to prioritize my tasks.

24. I am
suspicious when I receive an unsolicited favor.

Scale for
test no.25 to 42

5_Always

4_Often

3_Sometimes

2_Rarely

1_Never

25. When
giving negative feedback, I offer clear ways for the person to improve.

26. When I
make criticisms, I refer to people's actions and behavior, rather than to their
personality.

27. I break
big projects down into smaller and more manageable steps.

28. When
working towards a goal, I take the time I need to evaluate the strategies
employed and the progress being made.

29. If I am
in a leadership position, I state clearly the goals that others should be
working towards.

30. Once we
have reached one goal, I set my sights on the next one for my organization.

31. I make a
conscious effort to implement more efficient ways of doing things.

32. I make
sure to praise others for a job well done.

33. Before
giving feedback to someone else, I would try to see things from his or her
point of view.

34. When
employees have worked extra hard, I think management should provide a reward of
some kind.

35. As a
team leader, when there is a job that no one wants to do, I offer incentives to
make it more attractive.

36. To
ensure that everyone pulls his or her weight, I punish those who do not put in
the proper effort.

37. I ask
"what" rather than "who" went wrong when faced with an
unexpected problem.

38. I carry
a pen and paper with me in order to be able to write down ideas that come to
me.

39. I finish
what I set out to do.

40. I look
for ways to improve my performance at work.

41. I work
persistently until my task is complete.

42. I feel
uneasy in situations where I am expected to display affection.

Scale for
no. 43 to 57

1_strongly
disagree

2_disagree

3_neutral

4_agree

5_disagree

43. I take
pride in my work.

44. I am
interested in other cultures and ways of life.

45. I pride
myself on being different.

46. I enjoy
working with theories.

47. I am
able to apply what I've learned to different situations.

48. I have a
broad range of interests and hobbies.

49. I am
good at brainstorming.

50. I like
to attend gatherings where I can meet new people.

51. I am a
private person.

52. I am
easy to get to know.

53. My
emotional ups and downs are extreme. When I'm sad, I'm completely miserable and
when I'm happy I'm "on top of the world."

54. I can
calm myself down when I'm under stress.

55. When
things go wrong, I immediately blame myself.

56. I am
easily discouraged.

Scale for
test no. 57 to 78

5_Completely
True

4_Mostly
true

3_Neutral

2_Mostly
false

1_Completely
false

57. I get
angry over things that others would consider minor

58. As a
group leader, I would have trouble showing others my gratitude when I know they
have worked hard.

59. I make
every decision with my company’s mission statement in mind.

60. I
frequently reevaluate my company's goals to ensure that we stay abreast of
developments in the world around us.

61. I am
good at thinking "outside the box".

62. I make
friends easily.

63. I am an
outgoing person.

64. I have
difficulty showing people how much I care.

65. I
perform well under pressure.

66. People
tell me that I am negative.

67. I get
upset when things don’t go my way.

68. I get
bogged down in the details and lose sight of the real purpose of what I am
trying to accomplish.

69. I am
able to motivate myself to complete unpleasant but necessary tasks.

70. I keep
my commitments.

71. I find
it difficult to decide which tasks are most important when I have a lot of
things to get done.

72. When I am
in an organization, I keep its long-term goals in mind on a day-to-day basis.

73. I have
little difficulty convincing others to go along with my plans.

74. I can
easily get people to follow my lead.

75. When
I’ve led meetings to evaluate our team’s performance in terms of our goals,
everyone seemed excited and eager to work.

76. I can
effectively argue my case to unsure colleagues and higher-ups.

77. I tend
to maintain a positive attitude even when things look bad.

78. People
look to me to help maintain hope when things go wrong in the organization.

79.

Allowing
people who were assigned a project to do it their own way...

o is not important.

o s somewhat important.

o is very
important.

80.

You’re
already completely overwhelmed with work, and you’ve just been assigned another
task. How do you handle your heavy workload?

o I stay late and work myself to the bone
trying to get it all done.

o I put
aside the stuff that can be postponed and deal with only the most important
tasks.

o I hand over a few incidental tasks to
someone else but keep the bulk of the work to myself.

o I hand
over all the appropriate tasks to someone else and simply take care of the
things only I can do.

81.

You’ve been
appointed as a project manager for a major assignment. When you assign a new,
challenging task to a group, how would you proceed?

o I would explain the task and then tell them
they are on their own.

o I would
explain the task and let them go with it, but remind them to ask if they are
unsure of anything.

o I would explain the task in detail and check
in from time to time to ensure that everything is going ok.

o I would
explain the task in great detail and then check in constantly, correcting
mistakes and letting them know how I want them to proceed.

o I pretty
much take over the project myself.

82.

Delegation
is...

o Unimportant to a manager’s performance.

o Helpful, but not necessary for an excellent
managerial performance.

o Necessary in order for a manager to perform
well.

83.

When someone
does something incorrectly or acts inappropriately, it’s important to…

o correct
the behavior immediately.

o hold off
on correcting the behavior in case it was a one time thing.

o let it slide – no need to stress out the
employee or cause conflict.

o hold off and bring up the behavior later,
during a performance evaluation.

84.

In general,
I set goals that...

o are easy.

o may not be quite challenging enough.

o are
challenging but realistic to achieve.

o may be a
little too challenging.

o are too difficult.

85.

The best way
to motivate a person is to offer him or her more money.

o o True,
everyone is motivated by money.

o o False,
people are motivated by many different things.

o o False,
money is a poor motivator.

86.

How
important do you think it is for employees to be aware of the organization's
long-term goals?

o Not
important at all

o Somewhat
important

o Important

o Very important

87.

Showing
others gratitude for their work...

o always
involves spending money.

o can be
done in ways that cost little to nothing.

o is unnecessary - people get paid for their
work... that's appreciation enough.

88.

What do you
think is the most effective way to recognize the achievements of individual
members of a group?

o Giving
praise both privately and in front of other group members.

o Giving
praise in private.

o Giving
praise in front of the group.

o Praise is
unnecessary; group members know when they've done a good job.

o Praise is unnecessary; it might go to the
individual's head.

89.

Asking
employees what would motivate them is...

o a
ridiculous idea.

o a last
resort.

o a smart idea.

90.

As a team
leader, if I was going to make a major decision that would affect the group, I
would...

o put it
into effect and then announce it to the employees.

o put it
into effect and then explain the reasoning behind it.

o explain
the reasoning behind it and then put it into effect.

o explain
the reasoning and get feedback before putting it into effect.

91.

Which of the
following statements do you most believe to be true?

o Maximum efficiency is achieved when
everybody is told exactly what to do.